Talk:Svalbard Satellite Station/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Thine Antique Pen (talk · contribs) 19:25, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

References/Notes/Bibliography

• Fill in 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 19, 23, 29 and 35 with publisher and accessdate if data can be found. Also, what do the single numbers mean? 'p.' for single page numbers or 'pp.' should be used.

Other than that, the article is OK. The lead only contains information of the contents of the article. All sections are fine with referencing, other than what was noted above. The article contains some good facts which I believe are one of the article's strong points. {{commonscat}} should really be in an external links section, but as there isn't one, I shall let that by me. I shall put this On Hold for a week. Thanks! ⇒TAP 19:25, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Comment. The refs you cited are ref notes, they don't need have publisher or access date as they ar elisted in the bibliography. See Clint Eastwood or William Burges.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:23, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

However, the others contain that content. ⇒TAP 20:25, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that's normal though.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:36, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to review the article. The reference format is a conventional way to reference books and there is no need to include "p" or "pp". Full bibliographical information is available in the references, which includes publisher and access dates were applicable. This is a standard was of referencing on Wikipedia and is fully within the lines of all guidelines, policy and the good article criteria. External link sections should not be created only for commonscat, although I agree that if an external links section is created for other external links, it should be included there. Arsenikk ^(talk) 12:58, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I just wanted to add to the above that neither of the respectable style guides Chicago or MLA require the annotation of page numbers with 'p.' or 'pp.'; in fact they proscribe them. Eisfbnore ^{(下さいて話し)} 15:16, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Good Job! ⇒TAP 18:54, 9 July 2012 (UTC)